On 26/09/13 23:06, Petr Bena wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that there is a high amount of suspicious edits that may be > vandalism but were never reverted because people who were dealing with > vandals (using some automated tool) in that moment weren't able to > decide if it was vandalism or wasn't. For example some "smart" changes > to statistical data, dates, football scores, changes that look weird > but aren't clearly vandalism etc. These edits should be reviewed by > expert on the topic, but in this moment, they aren't collected > anywhere.
I used to just revert them automatically when such changes appeared on my watchlist. If someone changes the population of Denmark or the formation enthalpy of carbon tetrachloride, without providing any reference or any suggestion that it is a revert, the chances that the new information is more accurate than the old information is extremely low. In many cases, you would have to go to a university library to check that the original reference was correct, which seems like too high a burden to place on reviewers, considering that this sort of vandalism is extremely common. I would be quite happy if AbuseFilter or Huggle flagged unreferenced changes to numbers for immediate reversion. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
